Report this post

this is the link the the article most recently from the creators of Shroud of the Avatar.

It is one thing to try and sway the avid fanbase of the various avatar games over the years into purchasing virtual (see pixy dust) space to place a house in a semi-protected area of an online community that has not happened yet. It's another to try and now tell new people that are interested that "hey....better pay now or you will not have a home since they are limited" which only adds to this pixy dust house of cards.

I am not saying that the game itself will be good or bad. Just that there are alot of people in real life spending LITERALLY THOUSANDS of DOLLARS to have a house (pixy dust) in a virtual world.

Where has common sense gone? Seriously......ugh. I am a fan of UO and played it for several years, but I will be the last to throw my hard earned money into developing any game unless they will be splitting the profit with me.

Oh they are not splitting the profit with people that have invested 3K into the game? hmm well at least you get a pixy dust house :P

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I agree, this is my main worry about this game. For me, it's very simple - if I can't own a house (without forking out $500 or more before the game is even finished), I won't play. But since the game will be "free to play" apparently, at least I'll be able to try it without giving a cent.

And mark my words - I won't be the only one pissed if he can't get a property in the game. Housing was very important in UO too, but UO had many shards, this game will only have one game world. If they don't change that, the amount of people quitting when they realize they don't have a chance in hell to get a plot of land to build their own house will be massive.

And don't get me even started about the gold farmers. The Asians will be all over this game with massive amount of farmers grabbing all the house spots and selling them back to players for huge amounts of real world cash.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

A house / plot of land is not needed to play the game. Its just extra fluff. You can decorate it, place trophies in it, meet with friends or craft from within your house (instead of using a public crafting station).

You are basically paying for convenience. They have said that you will be able to friend others to your house as well, for friends that couldn't afford to purchase their own.

Why have limited housing at a premium? Kind of like star citizen selling $1000 ships. They have decided to use it as a main source of crowd funding. If someone wants to pledge $10,000 for a castle, fine with me. It gets the game developed, improves the game and I can just reap the benefits of increased funding entering the game.

If housing is breaking point for you, then I can understand if you would be turned off by this avenue of crowd funding. However, housing and owning a plot is not the main source of content of the game. There are tons of MMO's that do not offer housing of any kind, just a bank or cargo hold

Each house they render costs money and time. I remember reading that in Star Citizen, some ships cost $35,000 to render. They hope to make that back with some added profit to put back into the game.

The overall main objective is to get funds into the game.

If for instance they only offered a $30 pledge tier at launch, without any higher tiers (housing etc) X 24,000 backers = about 750k. 250k short of the 1mil needed to fund the project. Hence, the game would never gone to development and we would have no new game to look forward to.

The higher tiers and housing have helped fund this game. Not everyone will be able to own a house, but this game is not an MMO about owning a house and decorating it. Its about exploring and adventuring in a new land created by Richard Garriott.

How many adventurers are just gonna sit in their house all day? Its not gonna be the main focus.

Plus, as the game progresses, more land will open up and more room for housing with it as well.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Why are you so shocked about this, guess you are new to MMO's. This has been going on for years. For example there is a MMO Entropia Universe, in which you pay real money for everything including for bullets. You can buy and sell in game real estate as well, I remember some land got sold for 350k USD.

Also nobody is forcing you to pay for houses in this new Ultima game and those who want to pay will.

Report this post

A house / plot of land is not needed to play the game. Its just extra fluff.

Strongly disagreed. In a theme park game maybe, but not in a sandbox game.

To me, housing in a sandbox is an essential part of the game.

I played UO without a home for over 1.5 yrs. It was not "essential" to gameplay. Plus, as in UO, you can be friended to homes or have access to guild establishments.

Housing does not = sandbox.

Sandbox is considered an open free roaming world. Player housing is not part of the criterium.

Correction: It wasn't essential to you.

Sorry, but I'm also of the opinion that home ownership is a near-essential part of games like this.

I wouldn't mind so much about land being sold for real cash if it were just certain high-demand areas such as waterfronts, big city suburbs, etc. However with land being a finite resource and every single parcel available for RL cash, they're essentially locking people out of a chunk of content from the get-go because they're not wealthy enough IRL to pay for it. To me, this is absolutely inexcusable. I didn't contribute to this game for some pay-to-win cash grab, I contributed because I wanted a worthy successor to the Ultima series.

If this decision isn't reversed, then I will be contacting the appropriate parties to have my contribution refunded. This isn't what I signed up for, and sure as hell isn't the kind of garbage I want to support.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Swedish_Chef

If this decision isn't reversed, then I will be contacting the appropriate parties to have my contribution refunded. This isn't what I signed up for, and sure as hell isn't the kind of garbage I want to support.

Good luck with that, considering Kickstarter doesn't have the money anymore and since it isn't outside of what they promised in the Kickstarter campaign (non-instanced housing and paid prestige property), Portalarium has no obligation to refund the money and performing a chargeback would hit Amazon, who will respond by disabling your account and any digital items you've purchased on it.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Omali

Originally posted by Swedish_Chef

If this decision isn't reversed, then I will be contacting the appropriate parties to have my contribution refunded. This isn't what I signed up for, and sure as hell isn't the kind of garbage I want to support.

Good luck with that, considering Kickstarter doesn't have the money anymore and since it isn't outside of what they promised in the Kickstarter campaign (non-instanced housing and paid prestige property), Portalarium has no obligation to refund the money and performing a chargeback would hit Amazon, who will respond by disabling your account and any digital items you've purchased on it.

As much business as I've done with Amazon, I really don't think they'd be stupid enough to suspend someone who has spent a goodly sum of money through their site over the years (and a Prime membership) over a relatively small chargeback. Furthermore I don't purchase digital goods through them, so really I'd just be prevented from buying anything else through their website. Plenty of other sites out there who would love to have my business I'm sure.

Anyway, I'm hoping it doesn't come to anything quite so extreme, although I most certainly am willing to go that far if necessary.

It really would suck if I had to find another place to buy Irn-Bru from though. 'Free' shipping is nice...

Report this post

Originally posted by GungaDin "Kind of like star citizen selling $1000 ships..."

Sadly you are way off, Star Citizen Ships are just ships that can be gained in game by ANYONE with in game resources. Buying the ships prior to launch allows the following...

- you can play with the ship at launch

- your investment gives you insurance that you can also buy in game as well

- everything in star citizen (EVERYTHING) can be gained by just playing the game.

So why I can see why one might "think" it's the same , it is not. Anyone can buy the 30.00 ship and get everything others will start with that paid more , you are at that point just buying the game.

All items again can be gotten in game by playing and nothing more is needed no real cash ever! You can however use a store and do so if you wish but only for cosmetic items which can also be gained by currency made in game. So the differance there is there is no "cash only" option for Star Citzen in any aspect of the game. There is "when it launches" an option again to use real life cash for cosmetics, but you never have to and if you don't it doesn't mean you can never get them unlike other games where it's cash only for certain cosmetics, SC will never have this.

I Just want to clear this up that only 2 other games I know in development are going with this "Real cash only " concept ... Power Monger and Pathfinder.

"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"

Report this post

A house / plot of land is not needed to play the game. Its just extra fluff.

Strongly disagreed. In a theme park game maybe, but not in a sandbox game.

To me, housing in a sandbox is an essential part of the game.

I played UO without a home for over 1.5 yrs. It was not "essential" to gameplay. Plus, as in UO, you can be friended to homes or have access to guild establishments.

Housing does not = sandbox.

Sandbox is considered an open free roaming world. Player housing is not part of the criterium.

Correction: It wasn't essential to you.

Sorry, but I'm also of the opinion that home ownership is a near-essential part of games like this.

I wouldn't mind so much about land being sold for real cash if it were just certain high-demand areas such as waterfronts, big city suburbs, etc. However with land being a finite resource and every single parcel available for RL cash, they're essentially locking people out of a chunk of content from the get-go because they're not wealthy enough IRL to pay for it. To me, this is absolutely inexcusable. I didn't contribute to this game for some pay-to-win cash grab, I contributed because I wanted a worthy successor to the Ultima series.

If this decision isn't reversed, then I will be contacting the appropriate parties to have my contribution refunded. This isn't what I signed up for, and sure as hell isn't the kind of garbage I want to support.

Get a clue. They can not afford 24,000 houses. They don't have the funding to support the servers or required resources. Star Citizen has 19 mil vs 2.5 for SotA..

Anyone can own a house (via in game currency), its just very rare. Just like that $1000 ship. Good luck earning that in SC. As a backer of SC, I don't have any issues with them offering 1k ships. It supports the game. Why can't people see housing in SotA the same way?

Report this post

Originally posted by GungaDin "Kind of like star citizen selling $1000 ships..."

Sadly you are way off, Star Citizen Ships are just ships that can be gained in game by ANYONE with in game resources. Buying the ships prior to launch allows the following...

- you can play with the ship at launch

- your investment gives you insurance that you can also buy in game as well

- everything in star citizen (EVERYTHING) can be gained by just playing the game.

So why I can see why one might "think" it's the same , it is not. Anyone can buy the 30.00 ship and get everything others will start with that paid more , you are at that point just buying the game.

All items again can be gotten in game by playing and nothing more is needed no real cash ever! You can however use a store and do so if you wish but only for cosmetic items which can also be gained by currency made in game. So the differance there is there is no "cash only" option for Star Citzen in any aspect of the game. There is "when it launches" an option again to use real life cash for cosmetics, but you never have to and if you don't it doesn't mean you can never get them unlike other games where it's cash only for certain cosmetics, SC will never have this.

I Just want to clear this up that only 2 other games I know in development are going with this "Real cash only " concept ... Power Monger and Pathfinder.

I meant that it would be difficult to earn that ship in game, it will be rare just like housing. However, u can earn housing in SotA as well. I believe neither game is pay to win (as a backer for both)

If housing is such an issue for people, go play Housing Online or something. Owning property is not a majority of the content. Housing is their fundraising plan. Did they have other options? I don't know what was discussed during the creation process, but that is what they have gone for.

Housing is rare just like a $1000 ship in star citizen. I may never own a plot of land or that mega ship, but it won't stop me from playing the game. I'll just explore with my Aurora or live out of an Inn.

Report this post

A house / plot of land is not needed to play the game. Its just extra fluff.

Strongly disagreed. In a theme park game maybe, but not in a sandbox game.

To me, housing in a sandbox is an essential part of the game.

I played UO without a home for over 1.5 yrs. It was not "essential" to gameplay. Plus, as in UO, you can be friended to homes or have access to guild establishments.

Housing does not = sandbox.

Sandbox is considered an open free roaming world. Player housing is not part of the criterium.

Correction: It wasn't essential to you.

Sorry, but I'm also of the opinion that home ownership is a near-essential part of games like this.

I wouldn't mind so much about land being sold for real cash if it were just certain high-demand areas such as waterfronts, big city suburbs, etc. However with land being a finite resource and every single parcel available for RL cash, they're essentially locking people out of a chunk of content from the get-go because they're not wealthy enough IRL to pay for it. To me, this is absolutely inexcusable. I didn't contribute to this game for some pay-to-win cash grab, I contributed because I wanted a worthy successor to the Ultima series.

Completely agree with everything said here. I honestly did not know until this thread that they were only planning to open 1 shard. Housing in UO was very important to me. Was not for fluff at all. In fact certain housing plots my guild had were extremely strategic locations for an enemy guild we were fighting. (i.e. skara brae). Housing in most games since then was a joke (exclude swg and maybe 1 or 2 others). If they really open 1 shard and the land made available is simply not enough, then I will also be parting ways with it. Being a huge RG and Ultima fan, this would be really disappointing for me.

A house / plot of land is not needed to play the game. Its just extra fluff.

Strongly disagreed. In a theme park game maybe, but not in a sandbox game.

To me, housing in a sandbox is an essential part of the game.

I played UO without a home for over 1.5 yrs. It was not "essential" to gameplay. Plus, as in UO, you can be friended to homes or have access to guild establishments.

Housing does not = sandbox.

Sandbox is considered an open free roaming world. Player housing is not part of the criterium.

Correction: It wasn't essential to you.

Sorry, but I'm also of the opinion that home ownership is a near-essential part of games like this.

I wouldn't mind so much about land being sold for real cash if it were just certain high-demand areas such as waterfronts, big city suburbs, etc. However with land being a finite resource and every single parcel available for RL cash, they're essentially locking people out of a chunk of content from the get-go because they're not wealthy enough IRL to pay for it. To me, this is absolutely inexcusable. I didn't contribute to this game for some pay-to-win cash grab, I contributed because I wanted a worthy successor to the Ultima series.

If this decision isn't reversed, then I will be contacting the appropriate parties to have my contribution refunded. This isn't what I signed up for, and sure as hell isn't the kind of garbage I want to support.

Get a clue. They can not afford 24,000 houses. They don't have the funding to support the servers or required resources. Star Citizen has 19 mil vs 2.5 for SotA..

Anyone can own a house (via in game currency), its just very rare. Just like that $1000 ship. Good luck earning that in SC. As a backer of SC, I don't have any issues with them offering 1k ships. It supports the game. Why can't people see housing in SotA the same way?

Because even if I were to make enough in-game money to purchase a plot of land in SoTA, there's no guarantee any of the people who bought it up before launch with RL funds will want to sell it for in-game money, if at all. Again, people are going to be locked out of participating in game features because of a lack of wealth IRL.

Your Star Citizen example is flawed. As far as I know, the $1000 ship isn't limited to a certain amount (correct me if I'm wrong please). Anyone who scrapes up the in-game cash can head to the dealership and buy a shiny new one. Even if the damn thing is limited in quantity, people aren't locked out of core content because they didn't plunk down a thousand bucks. People without the big fancy ship can still do trade runs, mine asteroids, participate in PvP, faction warfare, and do everything in their less expensive ship which can be done in the $1000 one, albeit certain aspects not quite as effectively.

That's my issue. Like I said before I really don't care if RG wants to sell virtual premium property on a special island or piece of land with waterfalls, deer frolicking, and all that jazz to raise money for the game. What I have a problem with is that ALL property is up for grabs to those with the $$$. I already donated what I could, I shouldn't have to pay more just so I can experience the 'full game'. It's bullshit, and feels quite a bit like extortion.

I knew I should have put that money toward a higher tier of Wasteland 2...

A house / plot of land is not needed to play the game. Its just extra fluff.

Strongly disagreed. In a theme park game maybe, but not in a sandbox game.

To me, housing in a sandbox is an essential part of the game.

I played UO without a home for over 1.5 yrs. It was not "essential" to gameplay. Plus, as in UO, you can be friended to homes or have access to guild establishments.

Housing does not = sandbox.

Sandbox is considered an open free roaming world. Player housing is not part of the criterium.

Correction: It wasn't essential to you.

Sorry, but I'm also of the opinion that home ownership is a near-essential part of games like this.

I wouldn't mind so much about land being sold for real cash if it were just certain high-demand areas such as waterfronts, big city suburbs, etc. However with land being a finite resource and every single parcel available for RL cash, they're essentially locking people out of a chunk of content from the get-go because they're not wealthy enough IRL to pay for it. To me, this is absolutely inexcusable. I didn't contribute to this game for some pay-to-win cash grab, I contributed because I wanted a worthy successor to the Ultima series.

If this decision isn't reversed, then I will be contacting the appropriate parties to have my contribution refunded. This isn't what I signed up for, and sure as hell isn't the kind of garbage I want to support.

Get a clue. They can not afford 24,000 houses. They don't have the funding to support the servers or required resources. Star Citizen has 19 mil vs 2.5 for SotA..

Anyone can own a house (via in game currency), its just very rare. Just like that $1000 ship. Good luck earning that in SC. As a backer of SC, I don't have any issues with them offering 1k ships. It supports the game. Why can't people see housing in SotA the same way?

Because even if I were to make enough in-game money to purchase a plot of land in SoTA, there's no guarantee any of the people who bought it up before launch with RL funds will want to sell it for in-game money, if at all. Again, people are going to be locked out of participating in game features because of a lack of wealth IRL.

Your Star Citizen example is flawed. As far as I know, the $1000 ship isn't limited to a certain amount (correct me if I'm wrong please). Anyone who scrapes up the in-game cash can head to the dealership and buy a shiny new one. Even if the damn thing is limited in quantity, people aren't locked out of core content because they didn't plunk down a thousand bucks. People without the big fancy ship can still do trade runs, mine asteroids, participate in PvP, faction warfare, and do everything in their less expensive ship which can be done in the $1000 one, albeit certain aspects not quite as effectively.

That's my issue. Like I said before I really don't care if RG wants to sell virtual premium property on a special island or piece of land with waterfalls, deer frolicking, and all that jazz to raise money for the game. What I have a problem with is that ALL property is up for grabs to those with the $$$. I already donated what I could, I shouldn't have to pay more just so I can experience the 'full game'. It's bullshit, and feels quite a bit like extortion.

I knew I should have put that money toward a higher tier of Wasteland 2...

This is what bothers me to. Many of the players with less money will not be able to experience the full game.

A 50$ pledge will most likely not be enough to own a a house. Houseowners will be the ones with better real life economy.

Excluding players from some features cause they dont have enough real life cash to spend is as i see it bad for the game and i can imagine many potential backers avoid to pledge cause they will never own a house in SOTA.

Report this post

Originally posted by GungaDin "Kind of like star citizen selling $1000 ships..."

Sadly you are way off, Star Citizen Ships are just ships that can be gained in game by ANYONE with in game resources. Buying the ships prior to launch allows the following...

- you can play with the ship at launch

- your investment gives you insurance that you can also buy in game as well

- everything in star citizen (EVERYTHING) can be gained by just playing the game.

So why I can see why one might "think" it's the same , it is not. Anyone can buy the 30.00 ship and get everything others will start with that paid more , you are at that point just buying the game.

All items again can be gotten in game by playing and nothing more is needed no real cash ever! You can however use a store and do so if you wish but only for cosmetic items which can also be gained by currency made in game. So the differance there is there is no "cash only" option for Star Citzen in any aspect of the game. There is "when it launches" an option again to use real life cash for cosmetics, but you never have to and if you don't it doesn't mean you can never get them unlike other games where it's cash only for certain cosmetics, SC will never have this.

I Just want to clear this up that only 2 other games I know in development are going with this "Real cash only " concept ... Power Monger and Pathfinder.

I meant that it would be difficult to earn that ship in game, it will be rare just like housing. However, u can earn housing in SotA as well. I believe neither game is pay to win (as a backer for both)

If housing is such an issue for people, go play Housing Online or something. Owning property is not a majority of the content. Housing is their fundraising plan. Did they have other options? I don't know what was discussed during the creation process, but that is what they have gone for.

Housing is rare just like a $1000 ship in star citizen. I may never own a plot of land or that mega ship, but it won't stop me from playing the game. I'll just explore with my Aurora or live out of an Inn.

The difference is that Richard Garriott is up to his old (Tabula Rasa) tricks again.

Do you really think there won´t be any house plot left when Shroud of the Avatar launches?

I Call bullshit, as the game will be dead quicker than a fly! Only People playing then will be the backers and that´s it!

No one is going to buy this game when it launches, to be immediately excluded from content, just because they didn´t open their wallet several years ago!

After the Whole Tabula Rasa debacle I can´t believe anyone still believing the nonsense coming out of Richard´s mouth and yet again throwing Money at him.

Report this post

Personally really upset already supporting this for $200 before they decided to basically bilk us out of another $200.

With the " limited " and gone its gone announcements, this really feels like flat out extortion.

Technically they made a contract with us when we kickstarted this game, now they have changed their end of that contract.

Almost feels like fraud.

Oh and to rub salt in the wound they announce this land and house on sale.. 25% and 50% off our regular price.

Excuse me? "Off our regular price" if the sale price is the first price they have posted, then that is the regular price not some fabricated price they pulled out of their asses and never charged anyone.

Fuck you very much Garriott Im not paying for you to spit in my face again as you rocket off to Mars this time.

Report this post

Personally really upset already supporting this for $200 before they decided to basically bilk us out of another $200.

With the " limited " and gone its gone announcements, this really feels like flat out extortion.

Technically they made a contract with us when we kickstarted this game, now they have changed their end of that contract.

Almost feels like fraud.

Oh and to rub salt in the wound they announce this land and house on sale.. 25% and 50% off our regular price.

Excuse me? "Off our regular price" if the sale price is the first price they have posted, then that is the regular price not some fabricated price they pulled out of their asses and never charged anyone.

Fuck you very much Garriott Im not paying for you to spit in my face again as you rocket off to Mars this time.

Unfortunately I think that this developer is cashing in on his name and reputation. Good luck to all the gamers that contributed to the kick starter